The Democratic PR machine has convinced the mainstream media that the Republicanshave so alienated American women that a huge gender gap is looming that will propelObama into a second term in the White House.

The data show how fatuous this claim is. Rasmussen's polling -- the best, because hesamples likely voters -- shows Romney running 12 points better among men than amongwomen. But in the presidential election of 2008, Obama actually did carry women by12 points more than men (he won women by 13 points and men by 1 point). So there is,indeed, no growth in the gender gap.

In fact, the gender gap is smaller now than it has been in recent history. In 2004,2000 and 1996, the gender gap was larger than it is in the Rasmussen poll -- and inthe election of 2000 it was much larger.

Gender gap in recent &#8232;presidential elections

Year/percent by which women voted Democrat more than men:

1996: 15 points

2000: 22 points

2004: 14 points

2008: 12 points

Current Rasmussen poll: 12 points

So, at the start of the Romney campaign, he is running better among women than Doledid or Bush did in either of his national races.

The Democrats hope that by duping their always-susceptible mainstream media allies,they can spread propaganda about the gender gap in the hopes of provoking one byreporting one. But the fact is that Romney's defeat of Santorum in the GOP primarieshas established a basis for women trusting Romney not to go overboard on socialissues.

In a real sense, the Democratic campaign strategy has never adjusted to the factthat Romney is the nominee, not Santorum or Gingrich. With the contraception issueand the Pennsylvania senator's unique views on separation of church and state, theDemocrats were eager to run against Santorum. And with the legacy of Gingrich'sgovernment shutdown hanging over his head, they wanted to run against Newt. But itis not going to happen. The Democrats will find it is futile to paint Romney asanti-woman or to bill him as a Neanderthal extremist who will subject needy peopleto what one commentator called a "reign of terror" with budget cuts. It just doesn'tfit with Romney.

Instead, Romney's campaign has skillfully spoken of the vastly disproportionate jobloss among women during the Obama administration. Ninety-two percent of theemployment losses in his three disastrous years have been in jobs held by women. Onereason for the artificially low unemployment rate we now see is that more than 20million people have left the labor force since Obama took office. A great many ofthese are women who have elected to accept a lower income, discontinue daycare andstay at home with their children once they have lost their jobs. It will not fail todawn on these mothers that Obama took away their choice by subjecting them toruinous economic policies.

In 1996, the Dole campaign never got used to the fact that it was opposing the BillClinton who signed welfare reform, set the budget on a track to balance and cutcapital gains taxes. Instead, it wanted to run against the old version of Clinton --the liberal big spender who had lost the election of 1994 to Gingrich's forces.Similarly, the Obama campaign has never made the pivot from facing Santorum orGingrich to opposing Romney.

Its rhetoric about the savage Tea Party right is just obsolete and it can't let goof it. To do so would be to require it to do the one thing it cannot possibly affordto: run on Obama's record.

I’d cut off America’s supply of cheap, abundant energy. I couldn’t take it by force. So, I’d make Americans feel guilty for using the energy that heats their homes, fuels their cars, runs their businesses, and powers their economy.

I’d make cheap energy expensive, so that expensive energy would seem cheap.

I would empower unelected bureaucrats to all-but-outlaw America’s most abundant sources of energy. And after banning its use in America, I’d make it illegal for American companies to ship it overseas.

If I wanted America to fail …

I’d use our schools to teach one generation of Americans that our factories and our cars will cause a new Ice Age, and I’d muster a straight face so I could teach the next generation that they’re causing Global Warming.

And when it’s cold out, I’d call it Climate Change instead.

I’d imply that America’s cities and factories could run on wind power and wishes. I’d teach children how to ignore the hypocrisy of condemning logging, mining and farming — while having roofs over their heads, heat in their homes and food on their tables. I would never teach children that the free market is the only force in human history to uplift the poor, establish the middle class and create lasting prosperity.

Instead, I’d demonize prosperity itself, so that they will not miss what they will never have.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would create countless new regulations and seldom cancel old ones. They would be so complicated that only bureaucrats, lawyers and lobbyists could understand them. That way small businesses with big ideas wouldn’t stand a chance – and I would never have to worry about another Thomas Edison, Henry Ford or Steve Jobs.

I would ridicule as “Flat Earthers” those who urge us to lower energy costs by increasing supply. And when the evangelists of commonsense try to remind people about the law of supply and demand, I’d enlist a sympathetic media to drown them out.

If I wanted America to fail …

I would empower unaccountable bureaucracies seated in a distant capitol to bully Americans out of their dreams and their property rights. I’d send federal agents to raid guitar factories for using the wrong kind of wood; I’d force homeowners to tear down the homes they built on their own land.

I’d make it almost impossible for farmers to farm, miners to mine, loggers to log, and builders to build.

And because I don’t believe in free markets, I’d invent false ones. I’d devise fictitious products—like carbon credits—and trade them in imaginary markets. I’d convince people that this would create jobs and be good for the economy.

If I wanted America to fail … For every concern, I’d invent a crisis; and for every crisis, I’d invent the cause; Like shutting down entire industries and killing tens of thousands of jobs in the name of saving spotted owls. And when everyone learned the stunning irony that the owls were victims of their larger cousins and not people, it would already be decades too late.

If I wanted America to fail … I’d make it easier to stop commerce than start it – easier to kill jobs than create them – more fashionable to resent success than to seek it. When industries seek to create jobs, I’d file lawsuits to stop them. And then I’d make taxpayers pay for my lawyers.

If I wanted America to fail … I would transform the environmental agenda from a document of conservation to an economic suicide pact. I would concede entire industries to our economic rivals by imposing regulations that cost trillions. I would celebrate those who preach environmental austerity in public while indulging a lavish lifestyle in private. I’d convince Americans that Europe has it right, and America has it wrong.

If I wanted America to fail … I would prey on the goodness and decency of ordinary Americans. I would only need to convince them … that all of this is for the greater good. If I wanted America to fail, I suppose I wouldn’t change a thing.

Mr. President, Do you remember when the country rallied around you in hope of a better tomorrow? That was hilarious. It's hard to be funny with the President of the United States right next to you, but somehow, day after day, Joe Biden manages to do it.

Compared to recent wealthy Dem candidates (Heinz-Kerry) for the same office? No. Does his opponent have a frugal or median style abode in contrast? No. (million and a half plus a gangster yard) Opulent? Yes. Our nation was opulent - - - prior to Nov 2006.

As opposed to the opulent lifestyle Buraq and Moochelle enjoy from Chicago Graft and public money? Hmmmm. Maybe someone who doesn't have ties to felons and terrorists and is good with his own finances would be a nice change.

Yes, blah, blah. What is the functional difference between flushing a million dollar toilet and a zillion dollar one. A tenfold difference, lol. Even Obama defines both lifestyles as the 1%, labeled and categorized, whereas I would call each of them the family home, unjudged by me except for the gangster origins of the one. Still no comparison to Kerry, Edwards, Gore or the Kennedys because that is different. Still even a preference for the gangster money versus the earned.

There is nothing to argue about in terms of how to move the country forward when we share no values or desired direction for the country in common. We are running against the if-I-wanted-America-to-fail braintrust and they are a clever bunch.

Kerry, Gore, Edwards, or Kennedy aren't running for President this year. I suppose FDR was rich too, but he's not running for President this year either. Neither is George Washington or Herbert Hoover.

Speaking of facts, although you tried to equate the two, Romney's life style is OPULENT compared to Obama. Imagine Romney's 4 houses, one being not even your main house, but your occasional weekend vacation house that costs $20+ million.... He was born with a silver spoon, thereafter he earned millions upon millions of dollars. He's filthy rich. That said, so what? He earned it. Good for him. But to say he empathizes with the poor or even the middle class is hogwash. Our last so called businessman President was Herbert Hoover. A rich man too, but....

As for the "gangster money" or implying that Obama did something wrong, or saying that he has improper ties to Ayers is popular among the radical right wing, but it's no more true than those Martians landing in MN. It get's rather old being repeated without any facts time after time. I prefer to stick to the facts, not the right/left wing blog rumor mill. Or we will be back to the Martians again?

As for the "gangster money" or implying that Obama did something wrong, or saying that he has improper ties to Ayers is popular among the radical right wing, but it's no more true than those Martians landing in MN.

Please be so kind as to explain what sort of ties, if any Obama had to Ayers.

As for the "gangster money" or implying that Obama did something wrong, or saying that he has improper ties to Ayers is popular among the radical right wing, but it's no more true than those Martians landing in MN.

Please be so kind as to explain what sort of ties, if any Obama had to Ayers.

I really don't know, nor care. This has been looked at over and over again with nothing of substance to arise. No doubt they are acquaintances, but at that level, who isn't in Chicago or any big city?

The only hard facts that have come out so far are the $200 contribution by Ayers to the Obama re-election fund, and their joint membership of the eight-person Woods Fund Board. Obama spokesman Bill Burton noted in a statement that Ayers was a professor of education at the University of Illinois and a former aide to Mayor Richard M. Daley, and continued:

Senator Obama strongly condemns the violent actions of the Weathermen group, as he does all acts of violence. But he was an eight-year-old child when Ayers and the Weathermen were active, and any attempt to connect Obama with events of almost forty years ago is ridiculous.

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board. The president of the Woods Fund, Deborah Harrington, said he had been selected for the board because of his solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice."

"This whole connection is a stretch," Harrington told me. "Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator. It would be difficult to find people round here who never volunteered or contributed money to one of his campaigns."

The thing about your hatred of Romney, JDN, "filthy rich" "OPULENT" "silver spoon" etc is that it sheds light only on you; it tells us nothing about him or how he would govern.

Why would a loving family man want to be rich? So he is beholden to no one, so he can take care of his own, without anyone else's help, so he can go on to other activities etc. You fail to show a negative in it and amazingly keep saying "so what" to your own arguments!

Did Mitt Romney spend more on housing than he paid to the government? Did he spend more on housing than he gave to charity? Did he spend more on housing than the federal affordability guideline of spending roughly one third of your income on housing? No. No. And no. He spent more than you - that's about all we know. You link a picture but I've seen nice places before; I enjoy knowing successful people. Is 6 hours on his bed better than the 8-9 hours of deep sleep I got last night. I doubt it. He doesn't have to fix his own toilet flapper if it leaks but neither do my tenants. It looks like he gives his neighbors greenery and privacy out their door and windows. Unless he plays music too loud, there is not much at the Romney compound to complain about. How many workmen made how many dollars building his homes, to help pay for their own? He has a tennis court but also he has a wife, 5 sons, 5 daughter in laws and 15 grandchildren. I would have gone with at least 2 courts in his situation but it looks like they preferred to keep the trees and were a little cramped for space.

What kind of house SHOULD he live in? Should he have stopped making money when he had enough. Actually he is one of the few who did; that did not slow the hatred. When he is on the west coast, should he have to stay in hotels, cut rate hotels, if he can afford his own place? Should we have laws restricting second home ownership or second home size, further killing that market? If so, who does that hurt most? Or is this NOT about POLICY in the first place?

When we figure out what JDN really hates, maybe we could have a thread about that and stop muddling up the important political threads. There's going to be an important election this year. Someone should make a coherent argument why we should stay on the same course or else we should change course.

FIVE tries at the martian joke and still no one knows what JDN is talking about. Someone other than me should tell JDN we don't hear those voices.-------------"Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia ... solid academic credentials and "passion for social justice.""

Whatever his past, you wanted Osama bin Laden dead or in the Islamist intelligentsia?-------------"Barack was very well known in Chicago, and a highly respected legislator."

His signature piece was the right to kill babies AFTER they pop out the womb alive. Or as they say on the left: a "passion for social justice."-------------What you JDN don't see or won't admit here is that we have been moving America in their direction every minute since the election of Nov 2006 and everything has gotten worse. It got worse for the rich. It got worse for the poor. It got worse for working people and it got worse for people looking for work. The prospects for the future from the unborn to the college seniors got worse. We all share ONE economy. It is not us vs. them; it is "we the people". It is policies for growth versus policies for decline. But saying they offer policies for decline doesn't sell, so again and again it is 'hey, look at this other shiny object - over here!' Romney's dog, Romney's wife, Romney's religion, Romney's house, Romney's other house.

With a slight correction in the CPI calculation, we are at 0.00% growth, equal to John Belushi's seven year GPA in Animal House. 0% growth at the bottom of the cliff AFTER FIVE TRILLION IN NEW DEBT. Obama's previous budget failed in a Dem Senate by a vote of 99-0. They asked his latest budget chief when this new budget balanced. He stuttered like seeing Obama trying to explain to the rest of America why he liked Rev. Wright's sermons. The answer for our economy repairing under their policies is never.

We grow out of this after we vote out these losers and their policies. Not one minute sooner.

The thing about your hatred of Romney, JDN, "filthy rich" "OPULENT" "silver spoon" etc is that it sheds light only on you; it tells us nothing about him or how he would govern.

Doug, I have no hatred of Romney. Frankly, I might even vote for him although I do wish he would quit pandering to the right. But his background is relevant; it does shed some light on how he would govern and his understanding of the problems of the average guy.

Did Mitt Romney spend more on housing than he paid to the government? Did he spend more on housing than he gave to charity? Did he spend more on housing than the federal affordability guideline of spending roughly one third of your income on housing? No. No. And no. He spent more than you - that's about all we know.

But facts are important. Yes, he did/is spending more money on housing than he is paying to the government. His La Jolla vacation house alone is $20million+. And some of that is even tax deductible although for the life of me I cannot figure out why a second home mortgage should be tax deductible.

When we figure out what JDN really hates, maybe we could have a thread about that and stop muddling up the important political threads. There's going to be an important election this year. Someone should make a coherent argument why we should stay on the same course or else we should change course.

I agree; but JDN doesn't hate anyone, but some on this forum truly hate Obama. That is what muddles up important threads.

Whatever his past, Ayers is now a respected member of the Chicago intelligentsia, and still a member of the Woods Fund Board.

And an unrepentant terrorist. The fact that he is a respected member of what is called the "Chicago intelligencia" demonstrates how deep rooted evil and corruption is to the fabric of Chicago and the left.

In that Fox interview that Rich linked to, Ayers preposterously claimed that he and his fellow Weather Underground terrorists did not really intend to harm any people — the fact that no one was killed in their 20 or so bombings was, he said, “by design”; they only wanted to cause property damage:

Between October 1969 and September 1973, the Weather Underground claimed credit for some twenty bombings across the country, in which no one was harmed — save the three cell members who perished in a Greenwich Village townhouse in March 1970, when one of their creations detonated prematurely. Ayers claimed the fact that no other individuals were killed as a result of the Weathermen’s actions was “by design.” In his autobiography, Fugitive Days: A Memoir, Ayers recalled, he posed the question: “How far are you willing to take that step into what I consider the abyss of violence? And we really never did, except for that moment in the townhouse.… I actually think destroying property in the face of that kind of catastrophe is so — restrained. And I don’t see it as a big deal.

Right.

First of all, “that moment in the townhouse” he’s talking about happened in 1970. Three of his confederates, including his then girlfriend Diana Oughton, were accidentally killed when the explosive they were building to Ayers specifications (Ayers was a bomb designer) went off during construction. As noted in Ayers’ Discover the Networks profile, the explosive had been a nail bomb. Back when Ayers was being more honest about his intentions, he admitted that the purpose of that bomb had been to murder United States soldiers:

That bomb had been intended for detonation at a dance that was to be attended by army soldiers at Fort Dix, New Jersey. Hundreds of lives could have been lost had the plan been successfully executed. Ayers attested that the bomb would have done serious damage, “tearing through windows and walls and, yes, people too.”

In fact, Ayers was a founder of the Weatherman terror group and he defined its purpose as carrying out murder. Again, from Discover the Networks:

Characterizing Weatherman as “an American Red Army,” Ayers summed up the organization’s ideology as follows: “Kill all the rich people. Break up their cars and apartments. Bring the revolution home, Kill your parents.”

Now he wants you to think they just wanted to break a few dishes. But in his book Fugitive Days, in which he boasts that he “participated in the bombings of New York City Police Headquarters in 1970, of the Capitol building in 1971, and the Pentagon in 1972,” he says of the day that he bombed the Pentagon: “Everything was absolutely ideal. … The sky was blue. The birds were singing. And the bastards were finally going to get what was coming to them.”

And he wasn’t singular. As I noted back in April in this article about Obama’s motley collection of radical friends, at the Weatherman “War Council” meeting in 1969, Ayers’ fellow terrorist and now-wife, Bernadine Dohrn, famously gushed over the barbaric Manson Family murders of the pregnant actress Sharon Tate, coffee heiress Abigail Folger, and three others: “Dig it! First they killed those pigs, then they ate dinner in the same room with them. They even shoved a fork into the victim’s stomach! Wild!” And as Jonah recalled yesterday, “In appreciation, her Weather Underground cell made a threefingered ‘fork’ gesture its official salute.” They weren’t talking about scratching up the wall-paper.

A Weatherman affiliate group which called itself “the Family” colluded with the Black Liberation Army in the 1981 Brinks robbery in which two police officers and an armed guard were murdered. (Obama would like people to believe all this terrorist activity ended in 1969 when he was eight years old. In fact, it continued well into the eighties.) Afterwards, like Ayers and Dohrn, their friend and fellow terrorist Susan Rosenberg became a fugitive. On November 29, 1984, Rosenberg and a co-conspirator, Timothy Blunk, were finally apprehended in Cherry Hill, New Jersey. At the time, they were actively planning an unspeakable bombing campaign that would have put at risk the lives of countless innocent people. They also possessed twelve assorted guns (including an Uzi 9 mm. semi-automatic rifle and an Ithaca twelve-gauge shotgun with its barrel sawed off), nearly 200 sticks of dynamite, more than 100 sticks of DuPont Trovex (a high explosive), a wide array of blasting agents and caps, batteries, and switches for explosive devices. Arrayed in disguises and offering multiple false identities to arresting officers, the pair also maintained hundreds of false identification documents, including FBI and DEA badges. When she was sentenced to 58 years’ imprisonment in 1985, the only remorse Rosenberg expressed was over the fact that she and Blunk had allowed themselves to be captured rather than fighting it out with the police. Bernadine Dohrn was jailed for contempt when she refused to testify against Rosenberg. Not to worry, though. On his last day in office, the last Democrat president, Bill Clinton, pardoned Rosenberg — commuting her 58-year sentence to time-served.

These savages wanted to kill massively. That they killed only a few people owes to our luck and their incompetence, not design. They and the Democrat politicians who now befriend and serve them can rationalize that all they want. But those are the facts.

The examples I gave were of hate speech. The qualifier meaning 'lots of' in front of rich is not "filthy". Silver spoon is phrase about hatred, not about utensils. That you would hate and vote for him shows contradiction and nonsense. Given the disapprovals of both sides of congress, maybe hate is what people want to feel. If it informs you about how he will govern, inform us what you found out instead of the same repetition.

Housing cost is a per month or per year measure. You compare a one time investment that likely does not go down in value at all and say it is larger than a per year tax expense? You are not that stupid... GM, is he?

The feeling I and others hold toward President Obama is about how he IS governing us. I hate it, not him. I wish him private sector success, just like George McGovern who turned on a dime after he started in business and fought the red tape. Obama's association with these radicals told us in advance how he would govern. These terrorists were not free market advocates. ( The words you have expressed toward Gov. Romney are about ad hominem hatred - against the person. Did you oppose his health care plan, his tax plan more moderate than Huntsman's, his moderate view on climate change? No. His person.

Does one have to be poor to understand growth economics?

A different view is that to study poverty is to study nothing because poverty is the absence of something, not a quality in itself. Like studying particles in a vacuum. They aren't there. I don't want someone experience at being destitute. I want someone who knows the way out. If one accepts that wealth is good, one can study the conditions conducive to it growing and spreading it, not taking it. You in at least one side of your posting do not admit or accept that wealth is good. Without that acceptance, growing it or spreading it is of no value.

When I meet successful people I am overwhelmed with curiosity, not envy or hatred. The amount of wealth alone tells me NOTHING about how they will govern. Especially true for Romney for the reasons you suggest. He sort of grew up wealthy but his family started with nothing, made most of it after he grew up and he made his fortune on his own with of course the advantage that he was close kin with an important man.

Billy Carter beer brand, Neal Bush of Siverado S&L, Hugh Rodham of pardon fame, and Obama's aunt on food stamps all also came out of close kin with important people. It is an advantage of great potential but not determinative of your future. Nor any indication of how you will govern.

Romney is now the blank slate that Obama once was. Paint what you like on his canvas. Obama is inescapably tied to his record. He painted all over our canvas and people are finding it ugly.

GM; write what you will about Ayers. The problem is no connection of any note has ever been shown between Obama and Ayers. See above post for further details.

As for Doug, since when did the expression "Silver spoon" become a phrase about hatred, not about utensils. A "silver spoon" means you were raised rich. So what?I have quite a few friends who were raised rich. Good for them; I surely don't hate them. In my fraternity house in college I got what was called the "silver spoon award".It was a joke; it's given to the poorest pledge; that was me. I'm not complaining; my parents were great.

As for housing cost, Romney did pay more for his house in one year than he paid for taxes. Further, he got a mortgage deduction for his $20million dollar beach house. I'm not that stupid and I don't think you are. As for GM, he has been talking stupid for a while so I don't know. He should stick to looking for Islamics behind every tree.

I too agree when I meet successful people I am curious; I don't have envy (maybe a little envy, but not jealousy) and definitely not hatred. So what is your point? I also agreeRomney's business success says something positive. Frankly, he governorship says something positive; I wish he would quit moving to the right to appease the right wing.

"I don't want someone experience at being destitute. I want someone who knows the way out." I agree, but Romney was never there (being destitute) so how can he find his way out of somewhere where he has never been? That is my point, although it is not a deal breaker by any means.

As for the relatives, brother's sisters aunts are different than being a son or daughter.

I agree Obama is mostly tied to his record. How it is interpreted is another matter. Not all find it ugly. It will be a close race. But Romney is not a blank slate; for better or worse, he has a business career and a governorship. And he has flip flopped like a hooked fish on deck. Too bad; the Romney as governor didn't sound all bad.

Further, while we can agree to disagree, may I suggest we try to be civil?

Before we comment on the significance of Barack Obama's connection to William Ayers, the domestic terrorist from the '60s Weatherman Underground, let's get the facts of the connection out.

On February, 22 Ben Smith of Politico.com wrote this introduction to his story on the Obama-Ayers relationship:

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

Obama and Palmer “were both there,” he said.

Three days earlier, the New York Sun had reported some additional details:

As an Illinois state senator in 2001, Mr. Obama accepted a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s.

Mr. Ayers wrote a memoir, "Fugitive Days," published in 2001, and on the day of the September 11 terrorist attacks, he was quoted by the New York Times as saying: "I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough."

He and Mr. Obama served together on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit, for three years beginning in 1999, and they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2001. Mr. Ayers, who was never convicted in the Weather Underground bombings, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago.

So we have at least a political friendship that began in 1995, and they became professional colleagues in 1999.

More details will certainly emerge if the MSM decides that the Democratic front-runner's association with a terrorist matters to voters.

And that is how the issue should be framed. William Ayers was a terrorist, and as of a few years ago, --if we believe the New York Times-- an unrepentant terrorist.

Does it matter? On Wednesday night, Obama made the case that it didn't in this exchange with George Stephanopoulos:

MR. STEPHANOPOULOS: Senator, if you get the nomination, you'll have to -- (applause) -- (inaudible).

I want to give Senator Clinton a chance to respond, but first a follow-up on this issue, the general theme of patriotism in your relationships. A gentleman named William Ayers, he was part of the Weather Underground in the 1970s. They bombed the Pentagon, the Capitol and other buildings. He's never apologized for that. And in fact, on 9/11 he was quoted in The New York Times saying, "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough."

An early organizing meeting for your state senate campaign was held at his house, and your campaign has said you are friendly. Can you explain that relationship for the voters, and explain to Democrats why it won't be a problem?

SEN. OBAMA: George, but this is an example of what I'm talking about.

This is a guy who lives in my neighborhood, who's a professor of English in Chicago, who I know and who I have not received some official endorsement from. He's not somebody who I exchange ideas from on a regular basis.

And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense, George.

The fact is, is that I'm also friendly with Tom Coburn, one of the most conservative Republicans in the United States Senate, who during his campaign once said that it might be appropriate to apply the death penalty to those who carried out abortions.

Do I need to apologize for Mr. Coburn's statements? Because I certainly don't agree with those either.

So this kind of game, in which anybody who I know, regardless of how flimsy the relationship is, is somehow -- somehow their ideas could be attributed to me -- I think the American people are smarter than that. They're not going to suggest somehow that that is reflective of my views, because it obviously isn't.

Hillary Clinton wasn't buying Obama's attempt to dodge the implications of Obama's freindship with a terrorist. Here's what she added:

SEN. CLINTON: Well, I think that is a fair general statement, but I also believe that Senator Obama served on a board with Mr. Ayers for a period of time, the Woods Foundation, which was a paid directorship position.

And if I'm not mistaken, that relationship with Mr. Ayers on this board continued after 9/11 and after his reported comments, which were deeply hurtful to people in New York, and I would hope to every American, because they were published on 9/11 and he said that he was just sorry they hadn't done more. And what they did was set bombs and in some instances people died. So it is -- you know, I think it is, again, an issue that people will be asking about. And I have no doubt -- I know Senator Obama's a good man and I respect him greatly but I think that this is an issue that certainly the Republicans will be raising.

That's where the issue sits as we head into the last lap in the Keystone State full of bitter, gun-toting, illegal-immigrant hating Jesus freaks. But it is too bad that neither Stephanopoulos or Charles Gibson followed up on the subject of the significance of Ayers.

One of the key questions for a president is where do you draw your team from? Who are your friends? What and who influenced you?

We know that indicted and in-the-dock now Tony Rezko influenced Barack Obama --Rezko is Obama's mentor and financier, enabling the not-yet-wealthy Obamas to buy a house.

We know Jeremiah Wright was Obama's mentor and pastor influenced Obama, and despite the many attempts by Obama to rewrite his own history, the friendship between Obama and Wright is deep and significant.

Of course they were friendly; important people are "friendly" with each other here in LA too. As they are in almost all cities in America.

The ONLY fact you have is "As an Illinois state senator in 2001, Mr. Obama accepted a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the group that bombed the U.S. Capitol and the Pentagon during the 1970s."

WOW a $200.00 donation. I bet that would change Obama's opinion.

"He and Mr. Obama served together on the nine-member board of the Woods Fund, a Chicago nonprofit, for three years beginning in 1999, and they have also appeared jointly on two academic panels, one in 1997 and another in 2001. Mr. Ayers, who was never convicted in the Weather Underground bombings, is now a professor of education at the University of Illinois at Chicago."

WOW someone who was never convicted, is now a full and respected professor at the University of Illinois, is an acquaintance of an Illinois Senator. Shocking!

Time to move on GM; no one, except you thinks there any story here except in your vivid imagination. Innuendo and BS. But when a police officer is arrested you alwayswant the facts. A bit of hypocrisy?

WOW someone who was never convicted but admitted to his crimes, is now a full and respected professor at the University of Illinois, unrepentant terrorist is an acquaintance of an Illinois Senator started the political career of a sitting president. Shocking!

I love it; you fix/change it, because no one else will believe your BS. If you don't like the FACTS, that doesn't stop you, you just change them. NO FACTS: but I think you like to make you own reality. Living in a bunker, you are delusional. Again, like finding Islamics behind every tree. It is rather shocking isn't it. Only when Police Officers commit heinous crimes do you argue, "well he hasn't been convicted yet". What a joke. Kinda pathetic.

GM; you must live in a cave; no light, no day. "Starting Obama's political career". What a joke. There are NO FACTS except a $200.00 contribution. WOW. I wouldn't do $%%& for $200.00 much less would someone as successful as Obama. Nor would that "start my career" at anything.

Hardly worthy of bringing up, but then that's all you got. Kinda sad huh? Should I start calling your Don Quixote? It fits, for more than one reason.

In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to a few of the district’s influential liberals at the home of two well known figures on the local left: William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn.

While Ayers and Dohrn may be thought of in Hyde Park as local activists, they’re better known nationally as two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement.

Now, as Obama runs for president, what two guests recall as an unremarkable gathering on the road to a minor elected office stands as a symbol of how swiftly he has risen from a man in the Hyde Park left to one closing in fast on the Democratic nomination for president.

“I can remember being one of a small group of people who came to Bill Ayers’ house to learn that Alice Palmer was stepping down from the senate and running for Congress,” said Dr. Quentin Young, a prominent Chicago physician and advocate for single-payer health care, of the informal gathering at the home of Ayers and his wife, Dohrn. “[Palmer] identified [Obama] as her successor.”

"In my fraternity house in college I got what was called the "silver spoon award". It was a joke; it's given to the poorest pledge; that was me. "

Silver spoon funny for poor kid but you weren't joking and maybe we aregetting at the root of your hate. Yours was an attack on the person and you keep defending it and expanding on it. I gave you synonyms to fix that, he was raised to be successful.

"As for housing cost, Romney did pay more for his house in one year than he paid for taxes. Further, he got a mortgage deduction for his $20million dollar beach house."

You say rich beyond comprehension, successful to a fault, and in the next sentence say he had to borrow to buy his second house. No he didn't. You say it 3 times and don't link it. Rich people don't need to borrow, they lend. There is no issue about Romney taking inappropriate deductions. It is still just an attack against the person, the Latin that is ad hominem. Be civil. Stop doing that.

You miss the main point anyway. If he pays 20 million for bricklaying, electrical, plumbing, roof installations, cabinet work, counters, custom closets, nice windows put in etc. WHO BENEFITED FROM THAT?? He is out the $20 million though got his money's worth so he is about even, but the bricklayers, framers, sheetrockers, cabinet makers, the guys that paint the lines on the tennis court, etc. - collectively they are up about $20 million, getting their bills paid and hopefully putting their kids through college. While the best perhaps were busy on this house other workers won bids on other projects etc and the other businesses in the area all benefit fromthe chain of events coming from a major new construction site. What is the downside of this? For all you obsess on it you just won't say what is wrong. What is wrong with good, healthy, private, consensual, adult, hard earned economic activity to liberals? What is wrong with having a beach house? Using it or having the freedom to not use it. I just don't see the problem and you won't say what it is. Because if HE owns it someone else doesn't? So no one should?? You just keep ripping it like we all already know how bad it is. But I don't hate rich people or resent successful people. We don't all attack and divide. Our side doesn't hate poor people, we want them to have the opportunity to earn whatever they want. We want people set financially or at least able to pay their bills. Rich means one more person we don't have to support. It's not filthy.

Who was it, I forget, who said "don't covet your neighbor's house"?

The President's job is not to individually counsel food stamp recipients on how to pay electric bills without money and to know from experience how it feels. He or she IMO is supposed to (among other things) set with congress our public policies so that every American has the best conditions conducive to long term economic growth and prosperity that are possible. It was the 'liberal' party that used to say "a rising tide lifts all boats". Anybody remember THAT? http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=9455#axzz1taeRBye3

Finally, yes, be civil. Parroting hate speech is hate speech. Don't do it. Do you think the us vs. them, divide-America line is okay because everyone you know is doing it? In a we-the-people country, somebody is going to call you on it.

I am deeply exhausted, and frankly, physically sick (taking antibiotics, have a cold, immune system quite run down) and my internal clock is badly confused. It is now 0400 (a.k.a. 1300 where I was for the last three weeks).

I had no internet connection the last three days.

I REALLY hate coming home to a disaster of a thread like this.

Personal antipathies are getting quite out of hand.

At the moment I am not sure what to say except that I'd like to ask everyone to have a conversation with the man in the mirror about not going down this road no matter what someone else might say.

SEALs slam Obama for using them as 'ammunition' in bid to take credit for bin Laden killing during election campaignBy Toby HarndenPUBLISHED: 18:35 EST, 30 April 2012 | UPDATED: 10:42 EST, 1 May 2012 Comments (623) Share Serving and former US Navy SEALs have slammed President Barack Obama for taking the credit for killing Osama bin Laden and accused him of using Special Forces operators as ‘ammunition’ for his re-election campaign.

The SEALs spoke out to MailOnline after the Obama campaign released an ad entitled ‘One Chance’.In it President Bill Clinton is featured saying that Mr Obama took ‘the harder and the more honourable path’ in ordering that bin Laden be killed. The words ‘Which path would Mitt Romney have taken?’ are then displayed.

Besides the ad, the White House is marking the first anniversary of the SEAL Team Six raid that killed bin Laden inside his compound in Abbottabad, Pakistan with a series of briefings and an NBC interview in the Situation Room designed to highlight the ‘gutsy call’ made by the President.Scroll down for video Taking credit: President Obama has used bin Laden's death as a campaign toolMr Obama used a news conference today to trumpet his personal role and imply that his Republican opponent Mr Romney, who in 2008 expressed reservations about the wisdom of sending troops into Pakistan, would have let bin Laden live.

‘I said that I'd go after bin Laden if we had a clear shot at him, and I did,’ Mr Obama said. ‘If there are others who have said one thing and now suggest they'd do something else, then I'd go ahead and let them explain it.’

Ryan Zinke, a former Commander in the US Navy who spent 23 years as a SEAL and led a SEAL Team 6 assault unit, said: ‘The decision was a no brainer. I applaud him for making it but I would not overly pat myself on the back for making the right call.

‘I think every president would have done the same. He is justified in saying it was his decision but the preparation, the sacrifice - it was a broader team effort.’

Mr Zinke, who is now a Republican state senator in Montana, added that MR Obama was exploiting bin Laden’s death for his re-election bid. ‘The President and his administration are positioning him as a war president using the SEALs as ammunition. It was predictable.’

Target: Bin Laden, pictured in his compound in Pakistan, was killed a year ago Mission: Senior figures gathered to watch Navy SEALs invade the compoundMr Obama has faced criticism even from allies about his decision to make a campaign ad about the bin Laden raid. Arianna Huffington, an outspoken liberal who runs the left-leaning Huffington Post website, roundly condemned it.

She told CBS: ‘We should celebrate the fact that they did such a great job. It's one thing to have an NBC special from the Situation Room... all that to me is perfectly legitimate, but to turn it into a campaign ad is one of the most despicable things you can do.’

Campaigning in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, Mr Romney responded to a shouted question by a reporter by saying: ‘Even Jimmy Carter would have given that order.’

A serving SEAL Team member said: ‘Obama wasn’t in the field, at risk, carrying a gun. As president, at every turn he should be thanking the guys who put their lives on the line to do this. He does so in his official speeches because he speechwriters are smart.

‘But the more he tries to take the credit for it, the more the ground operators are saying, “Come on, man!” It really didn’t matter who was president. At the end of the day, they were going to go.’

Chris Kyle, a former SEAL sniper with 160 confirmed and another 95 unconfirmed kills to his credit, said: ‘The operation itself was great and the nation felt immense pride. It was great that we did it.

‘But bin Laden was just a figurehead. The war on terror continues. Taking him out didn’t really change anything as far as the war on terror is concerned and using it as a political attack is a cheap shot.

‘In years to come there is going to be information that will come out that Obama was not the man who made the call. He can say he did and the people who really know what happened are inside the Pentagon, are in the military and the military isn’t allowed to speak out against the commander- in-chief so his secret is safe.’

Rival: Mr Obama has questioned whether Mitt Romney would have done the sameSenior military figures have said that Admiral William McRaven, a former SEAL who was then head of Joint Special Operations Command (JSOC) made the decision to take bin Laden out. Tactical decisions were delegated even further down the chain of command.

Mr Kyle added: ‘He's trying to say that Romney wouldn't have made the same call? Anyone who is patriotic to this country would have made that exact call, Democrat or Republican. Obama is taking more credit than he is due but it's going to get him some pretty good mileage.’

A former intelligence official who was serving in the US government when bin Laden was killed said that the Obama administration knew about the al-Qaeda leader’s whereabouts in October 2010 but delayed taking action and risked letting him escape.

‘In the end, Obama was forced to make a decision and do it. He knew that if he didn’t do it the political risks in not taking action were huge. Mitt Romney would have made the call but he would have made it earlier – as would George W. Bush.’

That pretty well sums it up. In the heat of a political race, people make stupid mistakes. And that was pretty stupid.

I commend Obama for what he did, he did have a choice, and he is the commander in chief, but there is absolutely no reason to criticize Romney. Romney IMHO seems honorable,intelligent, patriotic, and as a side note, quite reasonable. However, IMHO his appeasement of the right wing to win the primaries may be his downfall. Others may disagree...

I hope, although I doubt it, that this race will try to maintain the high side....

I agree that there are going to be mistakes in the heat of battle. But this one is a doozy. It is a not an ad hoc remark or hot mic moment but a highly planned out ad, timed with the anniversary of the greatest operation in recent times, utilizing the celebrity status of a former President, and orchestrated with the followup from the Vice President. The powers of incumbency and the powers of having a huge campaign war chest ran amok. Wrong to spike the football came right from the President, not the opponents, and it had to do with not inciting more attacks on Americans, not politics at home.

Of course Obama deserves credit for the OBL kill, just like Nixon does for approving the landing of the first man on the moon.

The campaign is pairing the magnificent performance of our special operations with a gotcha attempt on Romney quote, vague and clipped, where he said he wouldn't move heaven and earth to get one man.

The Romney point in 2008 I think was to remember there are other metrics in the war on terror of how we are doing like not having our cities and planes blown up He was saying don't publicly build up the international importance of getting this one man. Not saying don't kill him.

There were too many "I"s in the original Obama announcement. He didn't get it that it was enough that he was the one got to make the amazing announcement to the country and to the world. The political bump was there but relatively small and short lived. If another 3 week bump was possible, they needed it in Oct, not April.

Soon they will be saying Romney's foreign intervention policies will be too aggressive and dangerous. He is too willing to go after targets like this and prosecute a war on terror when we should be pulling away. (The Mission was Accomplished.)

President Obama's foreign policy record is cheapened by the bravato. Republicans will certainly criticize his record and he could have said in rebuttal, 'hey, I got us out of 2 wars and killed Osama bin Laden'. Instead it looks more like two surrenders and a no-brainer.

This attack made it through the highest levels of the campaign, which means the idea came from someone with so much pull that no adviser could say it was ill-advised. Most likely came fromthe President himself, or the first lady?

The other explanation is that the idea was pushed forward by Bill Clinton, a political genius, but in intentional sabotage. Funny how he is right in the middle of it - while his wife is leaving the administration, not going to the convention. No one is that cynical.

"The other explanation is that the idea was pushed forward by Bill Clinton, a political genius, but in intentional sabotage. Funny how he is right in the middle of it - while his wife is leaving the administration, not going to the convention. No one is that cynical."

Who says Sec. State Clinton is leaving the adminstration? She can't go to the convention, because the SecSt is meant to be a non-partisan position, and it is inappropriate to attend.

I did not mean to say sooner than that, just that she won't be staying on.

"She can't go to the convention, because the SecSt is meant to be a non-partisan position, and it is inappropriate to attend."

That is a good point of clarification. Some outlets ran it to mean more than that.

The idea that foreign policy is meant to be non-partisan has a sad element of humor and nostalgia to it, while her husband stars in a highly partisan campaign commercial - about foreign policy - running right now.

This may be sematics, but there is a difference, to me at leat, between leaving the adminstration and not continuing for a second term (if that occurs).

"The idea that foreign policy is meant to be non-partisan has a sad element of humor and nostalgia to it, while her husband stars in a highly partisan campaign commercial - about foreign policy - running right now."

Agreed.

"Some outlets ran it to mean more than that."

Some outlets don't know what the hell they are talking about. See below.

“Given her current position, she will not be attending, consistent with her not engaging in any political activity whatsoever,” Philippe Reines, spokesman for the Secretary of State, told The Charlotte Observer, which reports that ethical guidelines and federal statutes preclude Clinton, and some cabinets from participating in anything partisan.

As lamented on Media Issues, I very much regret the need to get so much of my information from biased right wing sources, and I very much appreciate that this format makes it possible to get misinformation cleared up very quickly.

Your distinction of not staying a second term versus that I wrote 'leaving' is quite valid. Most cabinet members I'm sure serve no more than one term. It does not mean a rift or anything like that. She has been 100% loyal in her position. More dedicated to her job than her boss has been to his. (MHO)

It's just that with the Clintons there is some history that precedes her service in this capacity.

Mitt Romney's campaign says it has many routes to the 270 votes needed for victory in the Electoral College this fall. But almost all of them rely on a difficult feat: Winning at least six states that went for President Barack Obama in 2008.

Spot Mr. Romney the five biggest swing states the Democrat won four years ago—Florida, Ohio, Virginia, North Carolina and Indiana—and the Republican still wouldn't be guaranteed the White House. To win, he would need to also carry at least one other state that went to Mr. Obama four years ago.

That makes Mr. Romney's path to the White House narrow and perilous, while Mr. Obama has multiple routes to victory, including several that don't require him to win either Florida or Ohio, the most important battlegrounds of past elections.

Voting history and recent polling data show that Mr. Obama can count on a floor of close to 230 electoral votes from wins in the traditional Democratic strongholds that include California and the West Coast, plus New York and the Northeast. The base for Republican candidates is about 190 electoral votes from the Deep South, the Plains, some of the Mountain West and the big prize of Texas.

That math is in the background as the candidates lay out their campaign schedules. Mr. Obama will speak on student loans Friday in Virginia and then hold his first campaign rallies Saturday in Virginia and Ohio. Victories in those two states would all but assure his return to the White House, even if he lost all other swing states—defined as those that moved between the parties in recent presidential elections.

Mr. Romney spent Wednesday and Thursday in Virginia, and he plans a return visit next week.

Romney political director Rich Beeson says the GOP candidate has a range of ways to win. Florida, North Carolina, Virginia, Ohio and Indiana "are states that Republicans have won in the past, and not the far-too-distant past," he said. "It's not like we have to go out and win a Maryland." He offered a long list of states that could put Mr. Romney over the top when added to those five states.

But a stumble by Mr. Romney in Florida—whose 29 electoral votes make it the top prize among swing states—could stop him in his tracks, even if he won every other battleground in the country. The only way he could win without Florida is if he picked up a big state that hasn't gone Republican in years, such as Pennsylvania or Michigan.

A loss in Ohio wouldn't eliminate Mr. Romney but likely would leave him little margin for error. He would have to deprive Mr. Obama of wins in almost all other swing states. Losing Virginia along with Ohio, for example, would cost Mr. Romney the election. So would losing Ohio, Colorado and almost any other swing state.

For Mr. Obama, there is no single state that, if lost, would sound a similar death knell.

Electoral AdvantageSee how states' electoral college votes have been cast since 1992.

. More photos and interactive graphics ."It is always difficult to beat an incumbent, but it's all the more difficult to beat a Democratic incumbent who put so many traditionally Republican states into play last time," said Christian Ferry, who served as deputy campaign manager for Sen. John McCain, the 2008 Republican nominee.

For its part, the Obama camp says it has at least five distinct routes to re-election, including ones that envision losing both Florida and Ohio.

Both camps are putting huge weight on Virginia, a state that demographic forces—especially Northern Virginia's burgeoning suburbs—have made all the riper for Democrats. A combination of new Hispanic voters and the growth of politically competitive suburbs near Washington have changed the state's complexion in recent years. A Washington Post poll released Thursday found Mr. Obama leading Mr. Romney in Virginia among registered voters, 51% to 44%.

"Virginia is looking like the new Ohio, and Obama right now appears to be pretty strong there," said Patrick Ruffini, a Republican strategist who worked on the Bush campaign in 2004.

The Romney camp was cheered Thursday by poll numbers showing the former Massachusetts governor locked in a statistical dead heat with Mr. Obama in both Florida and Ohio.

The polls, released by Quinnipiac University, also highlighted Mr. Obama's challenges. A plurality in both states, for instance, said he didn't deserve to be re-elected.

For Mr. Romney, nothing would improve his prospects more than a big win in the industrial heartland. He plans to campaign in Pennsylvania Friday, even though his aides say they regard the state as a long shot. A Quinnipiac poll released Thursday found Mr. Obama eight points ahead of his rival.

A likelier upset candidate, the Romney camp says, might be Michigan, where Mr. Romney grew up and his father served four terms as governor. But the government-assisted turnaround of General Motors and Chrysler, which Mr. Romney opposed, could make a win there tougher.

With the election still six months off, Larry Sabato, director of the University of Virginia Center for Politics, says much will still hinge on the state of the economy in the fall.

"If the economy is grim, even states like Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin could come into play" for the Romney campaign, Mr. Sabato said. "If the economy looks to be improving, then the path for Romney will be truly narrow."

I know 2008 is the starting point for all the analysts, but this year has no similarity.

Mitt Romney needs to defeat Barack Obama in the national election. On issues, competence and direction, he needs to do that by more than a sliver of a point. If he does, he will win Florida and Ohio. Indiana by double digits and win North Carolina easily. The latest Virginia poll shows Obama leading but also shows him running better with independents than he carried them in 2008. That is not likely in Nov. Twice as many say we are on the wrong track. http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2012/05/whats-up-in-virginia.php

In the scenario in the piece, they say Romney would have to switch those 5 AND get one more. But if he switches those 5 states, he most certainly will carry New Hampshire and win. Also possible are Iowa, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Wisconsin, Michigan, Colorado, Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

In a squeaker, who knows, but if Romney wins nationwide by a couple of points or more, the electoral victory will be convincing. My scenario has him beating Obama by a nearly 2:1 margin in the electoral college. That is more likely than Obama all the he did in 2008.